Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Not a joke...for once !

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • seahawk
    replied
    Well, the US was neutral but only so much.

    Apart from Lend and Lease there were:

    - 1940 50 destroyers from the USN reserve are handed over to the Brits
    - US destroyers monitor movements of German ships in the Atlantic and radio their position to British and Dutch ships for interception
    - US extends neutral zone to 300nm. German ships are not allowed to enter it, british are
    - March 1941 Support Force Atlantic starts protecting convoys destined for the UK
    - March 1941 ABC Conference. UK and US agree that the Atlantic fleet will protect British ships crossing the Atlantic
    - March 30 1941 US seizes all German ships in US ports
    - May US flying boats join in the search for the Bismarck
    - June 14 US freezes German assests
    - June 30 US closes German consulat
    - July 4 US Marines replace British troops on Iceland to free them up for fighting the Germans
    - Sept 1941 after the USS Geer incidentthe "Shoot on sight oderder" is put in place http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Greer_%28DD-145%29
    - Oct 1941 CL-4 Omaha captures German blockade runner Odenwald
    - Nov.10 US ships escort a convoy of 20.000 commonwealth troops in US ships
    - Nov 11 Leand and Lease for Free French
    - Nov. 13 Neutrality Act from 1939 is changed to allow US troops to enter the warzone and carry troops and weapons and use them against Germans
    - Nov 17 escort carrier Archer is given to the UK

    Without doubt the US would have joined the war sooner or later, Pearl harbour or not.

    Leave a comment:


  • brianw999
    replied
    Originally posted by tommyalf View Post
    .......As for WWII the U.S had no intent on declaring war on Germany. We went to war with Germany because they declared war on us...thatís a fact.......
    The text of the declaration of war by Germany....

    German Declaration of War against the U.S.
    The Government of the United States having violated in the most flagrant manner and in ever-increasing measure all rules of neutrality in favor of the adversaries of Germany and having continually been guilty of the most severe provocations toward Germany ever since the outbreak of the European war, provoked by the British declaration of war against Germany on September 3, 1939, has finally resorted to open military acts of aggression.
    On September 11, 1941, the President of the United States publicly declared that he had ordered the American Navy and Air Force to shoot on sight at any German war vessel. In his speech of October 27, 1941, he once more expressly affirmed that this order was in force. Acting under this order, vessels of the American Navy, since early September 1941, have systematically attacked German naval forces. Thus, American destroyers, as for instance the Greer, the Kearny and the Reuben James, have opened fire on German submarines according to plan. The Secretary of the American Navy, Mr. Knox, himself confirmed that American destroyers attacked German submarines.
    Furthermore, the naval forces of the United States, under order of their Government and contrary to international law have treated and seized German merchant vessels on the high seas as enemy ships.
    The German Government therefore establishes the following facts:
    Although Germany on her part has strictly adhered to the rules of international law in her relations with the United States during every period of the present war, (Rubbish, German submarines continually entered U.S. national waters on spy missions ) the Government of the United States from initial violations of neutrality has finally proceeded to open acts of war against Germany. The Government of the United States has thereby virtually created a state of war.
    The German Government, consequently, discontinues diplomatic relations with the United States of America and declares that under these circumstances brought about by President Roosevelt, Germany too, as from today, considers herself as being in a state of war with the United States of America.
    Accept, Mr. Chargť d'Affaires, the expression of my high consideration.
    December 11, 1941
    It should be remembered however, that this declaration came as a result of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour 4 days earlier. US involvement against Germany prior to this was simply defending national waters from submarine incursions and did not, as far as I know, involve any military outreach past such waters. In my mind, the German declaration of war was politically required to support the Japanese action.
    Ironically....if Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbour then there is every chance that the U.S. would not have entered the European war....and I might just possibly be typing in German now !
    Last edited by brianw999; 2009-10-20, 16:08.

Leave a comment:


  • tommyalf
    replied
    It's a great thing that you have never held public office. Alone, your thoughts would give MSNBC enough fodder for Rachel Maddow to retire. Oh, and as for "not attacking Germany," great analysis. Sadly, you got your MBA without ever touching a history book. Better luck next time.
    You really have been baking in the sun far too long. Each of your long winded posts are filled with Liberal Socialist BS and nothing more... Oh considering no one watches MSNBC, even if zombie Hitler was in office they’d still be losing money on that network. Oh and please enlighten us and explain one war the U.S waged that was not to protect or further U.S doctrine? Considering you failed to do so in your last post.

    As for WWII the U.S had no intent on declaring war on Germany. We went to war with Germany because they declared war on us...that’s a fact. If you also bothered to read past your Florida education (that doesn't say much) and did some research you'd learn our support of the British had deep underlying motives to forward U.S influence in the Atlantic. Our Lend-Lease agreement with the Brits never expected them to pay us back but in turn hand over key British strategic locations in the Atlantic that were far more valuable then what we gave them in durable goods. This essentially ended the British dominance of the Atlantic and turned it over to the U.S. This was the second best deal the U.S has ever made next to purchasing Alaska in terms of return on investment.

    Oh my last name...it’s clearly Italian and my family came to the U.S legally 150 years ago, learned to speak English, never took a Gov't hand out, and declared their allegiance to the U.S vs. you who hold dual citizenship. I'm rather certain if push came to shove someone like yourself would run and hide behind your other citizenship if it benefited you. So Trinny answer me this...what flag do you salute?

    Next time I'm down in West Palm I'd love to hear your ideology on America face to face.
    Last edited by tommyalf; 2009-10-20, 14:14.

    Leave a comment:


  • SYDCBRWOD
    replied
    Originally posted by AA 1818 View Post
    I agree with your concept here, but let's consider the example of an asylum seeker that originates in Afghanistan. Pakistan, Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan all boarder Afghanistan. For a person seeking freedom and to escape persecution - which of those nations could they choose. For them, they seek out a nation that has prooven itself time and time again for being able and capable of upholding the abilites to shelter and provide freedom. Australia seems to be the only nation in the area that they see able to do so. I understand that it is a bit far out, but it is a tried and true nation.
    Oh, I don't know - just about any of the countries the Afghanis pass through have a higher standard of living and no ongoing wars to directly threaten lives. Pakistan may be stretching the bow a bit far (it's on the verge of war) but India, Malaysia, Indonesia all have better standards of living and are not engaged in wars.

    I didn't set the UN's groundrules - they defined a refugee - and it wasn't that the person could choose a country anywhere on the planet and that country is then obliged to take them. It is supposed to be the nearest safe country isn't it? And if the country is more wealthy than Afg (not hard, its probably per capita one of the poorest in the world) then any of the countries they transit through or past fits the UN definition as a target nation.

    If it were the case that refugees could just select any country, half of Africa, most of the middle east (there always seems to be some group that is marginalised and therefore threatened there)as well as large chunks of Asia as well that should be allowed to just board boats and come here? We are talking potentially about hundreds of millions of people. Australia has enough trouble supplying drinking water for 22 million let alone 10 times that amount. Plenty of these boat people are dying in boats that blow up, sink, or just vanish in the tropical cyclones. Perhaps you would suggest that we should be sending Aircraft too so they do not need to make this hazardous journey?

    Originally posted by AA 1818 View Post
    Again, I agree with you - but let's consider the case of the Tampa Affair - most of those people were transported via Pakistan to the sea - the onto boats then into Indian Ocean. It begs the question - what must people be fleeing so badly to be willing to pay a human trafiicer, to brave the open seas in not worthy ships and then knowingly be treated like criminals when they arrive.
    No, I'd guess they did not go just via Pakistan, but also a few other countries. Nearly all of these refugee boats depart Indonesia. The question is why does the UN not have sufficient facilities set up in the countries adjoining these conflicts so these refugees do not have to endanger their lives in flimsy boats? And when the conflict is resolved, for them to be resettled back in their own countries? I view this as a failure of the UN on a near global scale. So as a result of the petty despots in Africa, no end of internal/tribal/civil wars over half the globe and America invading the other half to protect her own interests, Australia, a nation of 22 million should just be expected to soak up all these people who have decided they like the fact that we have worked hard to ensure that we have a stable government and bugger all corruption... I don't get it.

    A small analogy - you and your family work hard, you have through hard work and good fortune (abundant natural resources), have accumulated a decent way of life. In another part of town another family that also started 200 years ago has decided to spend their time and resources fighting internally in the family and as a result is poverty stricken. Should they be able to look out the window, choose an home that looks nice and just walk on over, claim they are refugees and expect to be let in and supported? It may be a bit harsh but it's accurate.

    Both Asia and Africa at the conclusion of WWII were pretty much on level pegging as basket cases. Something like 6 times the amount of foreign aid has been sunk into Africa and parts of the middle east yet these places are still basket cases, whereas Asia is going forward... Although I feel sorry for the people in many of these countries, sometimes you wonder why the above is the case... And whether the amount of aid the developed world is contributing will ever end.

    In one recent conflict in Africa, the UN world Food program was supplying food to pretty much the entire starving population of a country, whilst the government of that same country was buying main battle tanks and guns to fight its neighbour....

    #/rant#

    Leave a comment:


  • seahawk
    replied
    Originally posted by AA 1818 View Post
    I am sorry to hear that things turned out in such a manner. I think (I know, my 'kum by ya - hug and kiss idiocracy') that even though you have a few that abuse the system - most of the time the system works. Do I think that the systems should be changed? Yes, undoubtedly so. But, am I going to say that the system is a failure? No.
    The only failure in the system that no wrong doings in the guest country can avoid getting asylum, if the claimed country of origin is just the "right one".

    I worked with the UNHCR recently at a fund raiser, and also as a volunteer and when reading some of the cases you have to be inhuman to not feel for these people. I understand that when under trauma people tend to exaggerate (as some have said that these people lie and 'work the system to stay here'), but some of the cases (one in particular where a woman from Nigeria had her entire family killed by the family that she married into, only to then have her husband torture her -going as far as dousing her with acid) are so grave that you have to wonder - why would someone fake those traumas.
    No doubt they are real asylum seekers. However, if I look at the German situation then many of our asylum seekers flee their countries to get into out social wellfare systems. "I have been traumatized in the civil war in Lebanon", well which Lebanese has not?

    While I agree with you here - I have to ask (and here I am trying to be as clear as possible, because I do not mean to be rude, but just to be inquisitive and the statement might come off as rude) what constitutes behaving like a guest?
    Simple. No criminal activities and learn the language.

    The problem here, alot of the time, is that the asylum seeker's national laws and legal systems are corrupt and/or perverted by other issues that can prevent fair and blanaced trials/pursuits of justice. As with my example above (of the Nigerian woman), the asylum seeker fled her country illegally (crossing the boarder to a neighbouring nation without a passport) becuase she was going to be tried for adultery under her state's laws. Was she innocent of the charges, she claims that she was. Was the system biased towards her family and more importantly to her husband? The statistics do proove that. So, we have to consider when and where the conviction was made, and if there is a bias involved, and also if the legal system is sound.
    However, it still is a quite strange thing, when somebody who is claiming to be wanted for drug dealing without any reason and facing the death penalty for it in his home country, is caught dealing drugs in his guest country.

    Or when another guy caught for supporting terrorist organisations is wanted for terrorism in the country he fled.

    I am convinced that such behaviours will kill the system, when they have no consequences and become regular behaviour.

    Leave a comment:


  • AA 1818
    replied
    Originally posted by SYDCBRWOD View Post
    Playing devil's advocate here (as I'm never want to do) There is a difference between a Refugee/Asylum seeker as defined by the UN and what many other countries are experiencing. A true refugee is entitled to seek refuge in countries near the place they are fleeing. At the moment we have boatloads here in Oz coming from the other side of the globe! That means, if you are a genuine refugee then the adjoining countries are your target if you want to be treated as a refugee.
    I agree with your concept here, but let's consider the example of an asylum seeker that originates in Afghanistan. Pakistan, Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan all boarder Afghanistan. For a person seeking freedom and to escape persecution - which of those nations could they choose. For them, they seek out a nation that has prooven itself time and time again for being able and capable of upholding the abilites to shelter and provide freedom. Australia seems to be the only nation in the area that they see able to do so. I understand that it is a bit far out, but it is a tried and true nation.

    Originally posted by SYDCBRWOD View Post
    Picking a country on the other side of the globe, then paying a people smuggler to get you there as you transit a whole stack of other contries that are not at war is stretching the definition of 'refugee' to illegal tourist IMHO.
    Again, I agree with you - but let's consider the case of the Tampa Affair - most of those people were transported via Pakistan to the sea - the onto boats then into Indian Ocean. It begs the question - what must people be fleeing so badly to be willing to pay a human trafiicer, to brave the open seas in not worthy ships and then knowingly be treated like criminals when they arrive.

    Leave a comment:


  • AA 1818
    replied
    Originally posted by seahawk View Post
    In fact I had the pleasure working with asylum seekers. We renovated some flats to as new status, put new washing machines, ovens, microwaves and TVs into them. Just 3 months later those and the furniture where either not working anymore or gone. So new stuff was bought just to do it again and again and again and again... Only after the city council got tired of buying new stuff and bought cheap used stuff the things remained in place.
    I am sorry to hear that things turned out in such a manner. I think (I know, my 'kum by ya - hug and kiss idiocracy') that even though you have a few that abuse the system - most of the time the system works. Do I think that the systems should be changed? Yes, undoubtedly so. But, am I going to say that the system is a failure? No.

    I worked with the UNHCR recently at a fund raiser, and also as a volunteer and when reading some of the cases you have to be inhuman to not feel for these people. I understand that when under trauma people tend to exaggerate (as some have said that these people lie and 'work the system to stay here'), but some of the cases (one in particular where a woman from Nigeria had her entire family killed by the family that she married into, only to then have her husband torture her -going as far as dousing her with acid) are so grave that you have to wonder - why would someone fake those traumas.

    Originally posted by seahawk View Post
    I think asylum is a right that has to be granted, but I also think that asylum seekers are still guests in the countries that give them refuge and should behave like guests.
    While I agree with you here - I have to ask (and here I am trying to be as clear as possible, because I do not mean to be rude, but just to be inquisitive and the statement might come off as rude) what constitutes behaving like a guest?

    Originally posted by seahawk View Post
    It becomes a little hard to believe that some of them deserve asylum, when they are caught dealing with drugs or sponsoring terrorists. Especially if their home countries want to hang them for terrorism or drug dealing.
    The problem here, alot of the time, is that the asylum seeker's national laws and legal systems are corrupt and/or perverted by other issues that can prevent fair and blanaced trials/pursuits of justice. As with my example above (of the Nigerian woman), the asylum seeker fled her country illegally (crossing the boarder to a neighbouring nation without a passport) becuase she was going to be tried for adultery under her state's laws. Was she innocent of the charges, she claims that she was. Was the system biased towards her family and more importantly to her husband? The statistics do proove that. So, we have to consider when and where the conviction was made, and if there is a bias involved, and also if the legal system is sound.

    Leave a comment:


  • AA 1818
    replied
    Originally posted by Fear_of_Flying
    I know Canada has a point system as well that seems to be a good way of handling immigration. Like Australia, I think they've gotten saddled with a lot of refugee claims. What system do the British use now?
    Sadly, though - with Australia the easy at which many of the more 'high-profile cases' are able to reach the continent (and the fact that they have been rather well targeted by human trafficers) just blows some of the cases onto the pages of the press. Unlike many of the other nations, Australia's recent issues with Refugees (notably "The Pacific Solution") has done rather great damage to the image of the state.

    Leave a comment:


  • AA 1818
    replied
    Originally posted by tommyalf View Post
    Do you even have a basic understanding of why we wage war on other nations? You're so busy with your Kum ba ya lets all hug and kiss style posts that you really have no clue..
    Intelligence threathens your ignorant ways, and so you invalidate it by branding it "kum ba ya hug and kiss style,". It's ok, I have never expected you to understand where and when empathy and intelligence would interact and/or be appropriate. To be quite fair, you are capable of neither.

    Originally posted by tommyalf View Post
    The U.S doesn't wage war to free the people of other nations. We go to war because OUR (yes we are selfish Americans) interests are at stake. History shows that our involvement in wars is just that. If we wanted to play the White Knight we would have declared war on countries like Germany when they invaded Poland...oh and btw if Germany had not declared war on the U.S...we very well would not have engaged Germany until we were done with Japan if at all. The difference when we go to war is we dump billions into these countries to help them rebuild.
    It's a great thing that you have never held public office. Alone, your thoughts would give MSNBC enough fodder for Rachel Maddow to retire. Oh, and as for "not attacking Germany," great analysis. Sadly, you got your MBA without ever touching a history book. Better luck next time.


    Originally posted by tommyalf View Post
    Inhuman agenda??? Oh here you go again with the victim crap. The U.S's policies overseas are far from inhuman. People who come in from Mexico and the Islands are not refugees...they are illegal aliens who enter the country illegally, live here without paying taxes, take jobs, keep wages stagnated, and commit crimes more so then others. So simply because they have it tuff in their home countries means we should show some compassion and let them live among us violating our laws?
    Re-read the above. Once again, there is a difference between Asylum seeker and Immigrant. If you can get past your inability to read my posts/stalk me on the forums, you might be able to see that. Then again, with my expectations of you being this low, I am sure that you will find a way to suprass them. A pre-emptive round of applause!

    Originally posted by tommyalf View Post
    I swear like most liberals you'd rather put the needs of others before your own... You may think I'm arrogant, ignorant or w/e but I swear more and more I'm learning the smartest thing to ever come out of your mouth is a man’s genitals.
    Sadly, you can't take a hint. As I have said time and time again - it will never be yours. I am not into old men that try to hard to be wealthy, young and cultured. Sorry mate.

    Oh, P.S. - great job of being a role model on this site. You have hit a new low with that last comment (so very mature - it must be fun speaking like a 12 year old when you are in your 40s). It's great to see that these are the esteemed values of these forums...

    One more thing - with a last name like Alfano, I assume that you must be Cherokee, Chocotaw or Seminole, right? Or, was it that your ancestors too came to these shores, and sought asylum and/or immigration to this nation knowing that they could not prosper in their own homes? It's ok - I'll keep the genitals in my mouth if you keep your crap in yours.

    Leave a comment:


  • seahawk
    replied
    Originally posted by AA 1818 View Post
    - Has anyone here ever been a refugee? Has anyone here ever had to endure what most of these people do? Has anyone here worked with Refugees and Asylum seekers before? Has anyone here heard their stories, and perhaps seen the traumas that many of them endure? If you are unable to see it from their angle, then who are you to judge them? I go back to my original point - remember your role - taxpayer and voter. Either don't pay your taxes (and do not support your government, which is illegal) or use your vote to make a difference. In the mean while, don't judge - that's not your current role. When and if you get to that point in life - it will also be your job to see this issue in its entirety. If you cannot see things from the eyes of the refugee, and from the eyes of the legislator/judicial official then you are an idiot to judge.

    I have to wonder - if you wish to return Tamil Tigers to Sri Lanka, and to return Afghan dissidents (that will likely return to Afghanistan to a land and a people that will not even consider a fair trial and the like), and to return the rest - would you have been willing to return Jews (that had escaped the Holocaust) back to Germany? Would you have been willing to send Polish refugees back to Poland (during WWII and afterwards, until the fall of Communism)?

    BTW - here are some of the efforts that you are wishing to stand against:
    http://www.youtube.com/user/unhcr?blend=1&ob=4
    In fact I had the pleasure working with asylum seekers. We renovated some flats to as new status, put new washing machines, ovens, microwaves and TVs into them. Just 3 months later those and the furniture where either not working anymore or gone. So new stuff was bought just to do it again and again and again and again... Only after the city council got tired of buying new stuff and bought cheap used stuff the things remained in place.

    I think asylum is a right that has to be granted, but I also think that asylum seekers are still guests in the countries that give them refuge and should behave like guests. It becomes a little hard to believe that some of them deserve asylum, when they are caught dealing with drugs or sponsoring terrorists. Especially if their home countries want to hang them for terrorism or drug dealing.

    Leave a comment:


  • tommyalf
    replied
    If we, as Britons, as Germans, as French, as NATO members, as citizens of nations of the United Nations, or as Americans wish to fight wars to 'combat the injustices of inequality' in both Iraq and Afghanistan (in recent times) and in other theaters/nations - then who are we to deny persecuted peoples a place to live when we fail? In other words, why wage wars to help, if we really don't care to help
    Do you even have a basic understanding of why we wage war on other nations? You're so busy with your Kum ba ya lets all hug and kiss style posts that you really have no clue..

    The U.S doesn't wage war to free the people of other nations. We go to war because OUR (yes we are selfish Americans) interests are at stake. History shows that our involvement in wars is just that. If we wanted to play the White Knight we would have declared war on countries like Germany when they invaded Poland...oh and btw if Germany had not declared war on the U.S...we very well would not have engaged Germany until we were done with Japan if at all. The difference when we go to war is we dump billions into these countries to help them rebuild.

    My issue with anti-refugee sentiments: if you so wish to push your inhuman agenda then do so by working within your government's legal and political systems to remove the power of judicial and legislative officials to grant asylum. In reality, they are the ones that grant it, and you are the ones that put them there.
    Inhuman agenda??? Oh here you go again with the victim crap. The U.S's policies overseas are far from inhuman. People who come in from Mexico and the Islands are not refugees...they are illegal aliens who enter the country illegally, live here without paying taxes, take jobs, keep wages stagnated, and commit crimes more so then others. So simply because they have it tuff in their home countries means we should show some compassion and let them live among us violating our laws?

    I swear like most liberals you'd rather put the needs of others before your own... You may think I'm arrogant, ignorant or w/e but I swear more and more I'm learning the smartest thing to ever come out of your mouth is a manís genitals.

    Leave a comment:


  • tommyalf
    replied
    I agree that illegal immigrants and refugees are two separate categories, but both carry their own problems. For refugees, gaining entry is almost a guarantee of staying, which I don't think was the original intent of the program in most countries.
    Don't let the word "refugee" fool you... Many of these people are nothing but illegalís who enter countries through legal means and know how to play the system. They still burden us with the same negatives illegalís burden us with.

    Leave a comment:


  • brianw999
    replied
    Last time I looked at this thread there was only one post from Tom Alfano. Came back today to see 25 replies and thought "Oh, oh...I bet I'm in the poo here !"
    What a surprise though. A rational discussion taking place !

    Sorry about the wide picture of the white cliffs of Dover painted with the words..."F**k off, we're full up" !!! I'm sure you can make an image in your mind without me having to repost it in a smaller version.

    A little bit of history on why I posted, and I'm not the originator of the wording by the way.

    I have absolutely no axe to grind with any foreigner who enters the UK legally, accepts our way of life and makes their contribution to the nation by working and paying taxes. I have no problem with them following their own religion. I have no problem with them sending their children to a school where their children can learn about their family origins and learn English as a second language. Such people I welcome with open arms and will give every assistance to in order to settle into our way of life.

    I do have a problem when the immigrant refuses to settle into our way of life, refuses to learn English, scrounges off of the taxpayer, tries to impose their religion and/or political views above the values that I as an Englishman value, tries to make our children's education follow their way of life with the standard English education taking second place.
    Just to keep the perspective, I also have no sympathy with my own people who refuse to work, scrounge off of the state and generally feed off of those who do make their contribution.

    Every day here in Britain we have to put up with people from other nations who demand what they see as their "rights" to payment of a weekly unearned income, free housing, free mobile phone, free driving lessons...all of it paid for from taxes that they have never contributed to and are never likely to. These people take all they can from us and then try to impose their values on us. I am taking great care not to point a finger at a particular socio-religious group but you don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out where that line of thought is going.

    My stepson was recently fired from his job of 10 years standing, illegally fired I might add, because he had the temerity to go off sick with a chest infection. Since then he has been unable to find a job despite trying just about every day. In the end his money ran out and he had no choice but to turn to our social services ( now THERE'S an oxymoron if ever I heard one if you're a white Englishman making a claim ! ). He didn't want to, he would much prefer to work but had no choice.
    He got a privately rented flat which the local council paid the rent on....until they heard that he had been fired and why. They didn't believe that he'd been fired for going sick because that would have been an illegal sacking so they unilaterally decided that he'd made himself unemployed....and stopped his rent relief immediately. My wife and I helped him out until we managed to sort out the local council and get the payments reinstated but you would not believe the hoops we had to jump through to get some justice. Since then there have been several instances of his social security pay being suddenly cut for no apparent reason. At one point he was given an "emergency payment" of £10. That was supposed to last him a month. A total joke. He got no support from social services, we had to fight his corner for him.

    Balance that against the middle eastern man who came into the social security office and declared himself an illegal immigrant and claimed asylum.
    Let me repeat a part of that...He came into the social security office to claim asylum !
    You claim asylum at immigration on entry to the country, not at a social security office, but run the risk of being immediately returned to your own country. Life gets easier if you bypass immigration, you are far less likely to be returned and can always melt away into the community if it looks like it's all going bent for you. This man left the social security office with £500 in his pocket for him and his claimed family...he had no formal identity documents but he got an immediate payment. Something is fundamentally wrong with our social services.

    The population of the UK rises by approximately 240,000 per year (figure takes into account those who leave the UK in the same year) as a result of LEGAL immigration. Add in a natural birth rate amongst the immigrants once here and that can rise by another 60,000. Remember, this is LEGAL immigration. It takes no account of those who enter illegally.

    The UK government is taking steps to prevent the hiring of illegal immigrants into the workplace with a £5,000 fine and a possible prison sentence per worker hired....even if you hire the person in the belief that they are legally here. Ironically, the very government minister who introduced the legislation herself fell foul of the law by hiring an illegal immigrant housekeeper. She paid the fine but guess who won't be going to jail ?.....and let's face it, £5,000 to a Baroness of the realm and government minister is peanuts, just spending money.

    The UK is starting to get on top of immigration but I fear its too little, too late. We need far stricter immigration rules. We need to be able to return illegals to their country of origin without the interference of the kissy kissy, huggy huggy human rights groups. You come here illegally, you don't HAVE any rights. Personally, for legal immigration I would vote for the Australian points system...a system which ironically prevented me from going there because I was too old.

    Leave a comment:


  • SYDCBRWOD
    replied
    Originally posted by AA 1818 View Post
    Just a few notes:

    - There is a difference between a Refugee/Asylum seeker and an Immigrant. First and foremost, from a legal perspective - the Refugee/Asylum seeker is not committing an illegal action by living in a host nation (due to the fact that their rights are assessed at the point of entry). Legal immigrants do have their rights/stay assessed at the point of entry, and illegal immigrants do not. From that perspective (and rather important nuance), it is important not to group all of these groups together, as legal processes and the will inevitably affect them quite differently.
    Playing devil's advocate here (as I'm never want to do) There is a difference between a Refugee/Asylum seeker as defined by the UN and what many other countries are experiencing. A true refugee is entitled to seek refuge in countries near the place they are fleeing. At the moment we have boatloads here in Oz coming from the other side of the globe! That means, if you are a genuine refugee then the adjoining countries are your target if you want to be treated as a refugee. Picking a country on the other side of the globe, then paying a people smuggler to get you there as you transit a whole stack of other contries that are not at war is stretching the definition of 'refugee' to illegal tourist IMHO.

    Leave a comment:


  • AA 1818
    replied
    Just a few notes:

    - There is a difference between a Refugee/Asylum seeker and an Immigrant. First and foremost, from a legal perspective - the Refugee/Asylum seeker is not committing an illegal action by living in a host nation (due to the fact that their rights are assessed at the point of entry). Legal immigrants do have their rights/stay assessed at the point of entry, and illegal immigrants do not. From that perspective (and rather important nuance), it is important not to group all of these groups together, as legal processes and the will inevitably affect them quite differently.

    - As for refugees - if, after a period of time, the threat that initialized/legitimized the refugee may be returned to their state/nation. The onus is on the host nation to begin the deportation. As is mostly common, the situation is not ever rectified in a timely manner (to a satisfactory level - one that is suitable to the safe return and guaranteed rights of the human) and so the refugee and his/her family is allowed to pass from a 'refugee' status to an immigrant with proper legal aide.

    My issue with anti-refugee sentiments: if you so wish to push your inhuman agenda then do so by working within your government's legal and political systems to remove the power of judicial and legislative officials to grant asylum. In reality, they are the ones that grant it, and you are the ones that put them there.

    Possible backlash for denying refugees assistance/aide: a loss to global reputation (instead being branded unsympathetic), hatred from other nations/peoples,not being able to attempt to fix errors that the host nation and other allied nations have perhaps effected (case in point - Tamil Tigers and their relationship with the U.K.) and the opportunity cost associated with not hosting peoples that are being persecuted - most of them ethnic/religious minorities.

    Somethings to consider (from a liberal perspective):

    -If we, as Britons, as Germans, as French, as NATO members, as citizens of nations of the United Nations, or as Americans wish to fight wars to 'combat the injustices of inequality' in both Iraq and Afghanistan (in recent times) and in other theaters/nations - then who are we to deny persecuted peoples a place to live when we fail? In other words, why wage wars to help, if we really don't care to help?

    - Has anyone here ever been a refugee? Has anyone here ever had to endure what most of these people do? Has anyone here worked with Refugees and Asylum seekers before? Has anyone here heard their stories, and perhaps seen the traumas that many of them endure? If you are unable to see it from their angle, then who are you to judge them? I go back to my original point - remember your role - taxpayer and voter. Either don't pay your taxes (and do not support your government, which is illegal) or use your vote to make a difference. In the mean while, don't judge - that's not your current role. When and if you get to that point in life - it will also be your job to see this issue in its entirety. If you cannot see things from the eyes of the refugee, and from the eyes of the legislator/judicial official then you are an idiot to judge.

    I have to wonder - if you wish to return Tamil Tigers to Sri Lanka, and to return Afghan dissidents (that will likely return to Afghanistan to a land and a people that will not even consider a fair trial and the like), and to return the rest - would you have been willing to return Jews (that had escaped the Holocaust) back to Germany? Would you have been willing to send Polish refugees back to Poland (during WWII and afterwards, until the fall of Communism)?

    BTW - here are some of the efforts that you are wishing to stand against:
    http://www.youtube.com/user/unhcr?blend=1&ob=4

    Leave a comment:

  • Working...
    X